Gaspro, Limited v. Commission of Labor and Indus. Relations, 4135

• Decision Date: 27 November 1962
• Docket Number: No. 4135,4135
• Citation: 377 P.2d 932,46 Haw. 164
• Parties: GASPRO, LTD., a Hawaii Corporation, v. COMMISSION OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS of the Territory of Hawaii et al.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Page 932

377 P.2d 932

46 Haw. 164

GASPRO, LTD., a Hawaii Corporation, v. COMMISSION OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS of the Territory of Hawaii et al.

No. 4135.

Supreme Court of Hawai'i.

Nov. 27, 1962.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

1. A strike, of itself, does not sever the employer-employee relationship. A worker, in going out on strike, intends to preserve his job, and, if his coercive efforts be successful, to put it on a more palatable basis, whether the salve be increased wages, more fringe benefits, better working conditions, or merely in securing a bargaining voice through union representation.

2. That a particular interpretation given to a word or phrase in one section of the statute may have an impact on the interpretation of the same word or phrase in another section should be clear. In the absence of an express intention to the contrary, words or phrases used in two or more sections of a statute are presumed to be used in the same sense throughout.

3. Under the Hawaii Employment Security Law (R.L.H.1945, § 4250) a claimant's act of going out on strike is not a voluntary separation from his employment 'without good cause' or 'for good cause not attributable to the employer' so as to relieve the employer's account from being charged for the benefits paid after the cessation of a 'stoppage of work' at the place of employment.

Toshimi Sodetani, Deputy Atty. Gen., Honolulu, for appellee-appellant.

Moore, Torkildson & Rice, R. M. Torkildson, Honolulu, for appellants-appellees.

Before TSUKIYAMA, C. J., CASSIDY and WIRTZ, JJ., Circuit Judge JAMIESON, in place of LEWIS, J., disqualified, and Circuit Judge TASHIRO, in place of MIZUHA, J., disqualified.

WIRTZ, Justice.

This is an appeal from the judgment on appeal entered on April 3, 1959, by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, vacating and setting aside the decision of the Referee, Division of Appeals, Bureau of Employment Security, Department of Labor and Industrial Relations of the Territory of Hawaii, in a matter involving the Hawaii Employment Security Law (Chapter 74, Revised Laws of Hawaii 1945, as amended), hereinafter referred to as the 'Act,' and remanding the cause to the referee for further findings in conformity with its decision.

The Appellees-Appellees filed applications for unemployment compensation on various dates beginning on or about July 22, 1955, the last being filed on or about August 3, 1955. These claimants were employed by Appellant-Appellee, Gaspro, Ltd., at its plants in Honolulu until they were called out on strike on July 10, 1955, by the Hawaii Teamsters and Allied Workers Union, Local 996, AFL-CIO.

On May 23, 1955, the union filed a petition with the local office of the National Labor Relations Board requesting certification as the collective bargaining representative of the employer's employees. On May 26, 1955, the employer received a copy of the petition from the NLRB. Subsequently, and prior to June 10, 1955, representatives of the union and the employer entered into discussions regarding such representation by the union. On June 10, 1955, the employees went out on strike. The strike initially caused a complete or substantial curtailment of work at the employer's establishment.

On or around June 22, 1955, while the strike was still in progress, the employer, after having urged the claimants to return to work, began hiring new employees to permanently replace the striking claimants. It was not until on or about July 17, 1955, that the employer resumed normal operations.

On October 6, 1955, the Commission of Labor and Industrial Relations of the Territory of Hawaii, Bureau of Employment Security, through its acting administrator, rendered a decision that these claimants were unemployed from June 10, 1955 to July 18, 1955, because of a stoppage of work due to a labor dispute existing at the employer's place of business; that on or about July 18, 1955, the stoppage of work ceased and thereupon the claimants became entitled to unemployment compensation benefits.

The employer appealed this decision of the commission to the referee on the grounds:

'(a) That said claimants, and each of them, are disqualified for benefits under Section 4231(d) ¹ of the Act;

'(b) That even assuming no disqualfication is imposed upon said claimants under Section 4231(d), each of said claimants left his work voluntarily either without good cause or for a cause not attributable to the Employer and therefore none of the benefits which may be paid any of said claimants are chargeable to the Employer's account.'

On February 20, 1956, the referee rendered a decision affirming the decision of the commission. The employer appealed to the circuit court and in the course of this appeal waived the first six grounds for appeal set forth in its notice of appeal and relied solely on the ground that, whether or not some or all of the claimants became eligible for benefits under the Act after July 18, 1955, such unemployment benefits paid or payable to the claimants were not chargeable against the account of the employer under Section 4250, Revised Laws of Hawaii 1945, as amended. The decision of the circuit court was favorable to the employer on this sole issue, holding that the claimants were not 'in the employ' of the employer while they were on strike and that each of the claimants became 'separated' from his employment with the employers and 'left his work' when he went on strike on June 10, 1955, within the meaning of the 'no-charging' provisions of Section 4250, Revised Laws of Hawaii 1945, as amended. Accordingly, this appeal taken by Appellee-Appellant, the commission, from the judgment remanding the cause for further findings rests upon the interpretation and application of Section 4250, Revised Laws of Hawaii 1945, as amended, which is now R.L.H.1955, § 93-64. The part thereof applicable to this case is as follows:

'Charges for benefits. Benefits paid to an individual * * * shall be charged against the accounts of his base period employers * * * except that no such benefits shall be charged against the account of any base period employer from whose employment he became separated under one of the following circumstances: (1) left his work voluntarily without good cause, or (2) was discharged for misconduct connected with his work, or (3) left his work voluntarily for good cause not attributable to the employer.'

On this appeal the commission specifies as error the following:

'1. The Circuit Court erred in concluding that the Referee is required to 'make the findings and conclusions necessitated by the 'no charging' provisions of section 4250' inasmuch as 'there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that Claimants left their work for cause 'not attributable to the Employer' within the meaning of section 4250.'

'2. The Circuit Court erred in concluding that when the Claimants went on strike on June 10, 1955, each one of them 'left his work voluntarily' within the meaning of section 4250.

'3. The Circuit Court erred in concluding that the Claimants were not 'in the employ' of the Employer while out on strike.'

When the claimants went out on strike on June 10, 1955, this resulted in a complete or substantial curtailment of work at the employer's establishment. Resumption of normal operations did not occur until on or about July 17, 1955. During this period the unemployment of the claimants was due to a 'stoppage of work' which existed because of a labor dispute and they were disqualified for benefits under the provisions of Section 4231(d), Revised Laws of Hawaii 1945, as amended. However, when the employer hired new employees to replace the claimants and was able to resume normal operations on or about July 17, 1955, the 'stoppage of work' ceased at that time and the claimants still unemployed became entitled to benefits under the Act. Inter-Island Resorts v. Akahane, 46 Haw. ----, 377 P.2d 715.

The employer does nto contest the conclusion that the claimants were not disqualified for unemployment benefits under the provisions of Section 4231(d) at the time they filed claims for such benefits. Nor does the employer now maintain that the claimants 'voluntarily left their work' under the disqualification provisions of Section 4231(a). ² Employer's position is that 'this appeal * * * does not involve any question either as to disqualification or eligibility for benefits. It is concerned solely with the question whether benefits which have been paid to the claimants are properly chargeable against the Employer's account within the intent and purpose of Section 4250. The fact that there was or was not a 'labor dispute' or a 'stoppage of work' does not answer that question.' In effect, the employer's position is that while the claimants did not voluntarily leave their work under the disqualification provisions they did so under the 'no-charging' provisions of Section 4250.

The employer's principal contention, in support of this position, is that a striker voluntarily leaves his job and no longer is in the employ of the employer. In short, that a strike severs the employer-employee relationship. The argument, based on National Labor Relations Board v. MacKey Radio & Telegraph Co., 304 U.S. 333, 58 S.Ct. 904, 82 L.Ed. 1381, is that a striker's employment status is preserved only 'for the purpose of the Act [NLRA]' and not for any other purpose and that, on the basis of the rulings of the National Labor Relations Board uner the NLRA, a striker is entitled not to be discriminated against although not as a matter of right, to be restored to his former job. Apart from its limited scope, the point argued fails to undermine the consensus of the courts that have held, in construing unemployment benefit acts, that a strike, of itself, does not sever the employer-employee relationship. A worker, in going out on strike, intends to preserve his job, and, if his coercive efforts be successful, to put it on a more palatable basis, whether the...